President Obama's Common Sense "Now is the Time Plan" for Gun Control in the United States

I went to the White House website to read the President's plan, Now is the Time, and understand even less how Rubio and others on the hard right can be making their comments against the President and this plan.  Here are the 23 executive orders from the White House:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health. 

Will someone tell me how these common sense Executive Orders are taking guns away from owners and affecting their 2nd amendment rights?  Makes anyone attacking the President on these Executive Orders look really stupid.  It would behoove members of Congress not to rush out with dumb statements before reading what was proposed.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on Wednesday that President Obama's newly announced plan to reform the nation's gun laws would not have stopped the school shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn., accusing the administration of "targeting" gun owners.

“Nothing the President is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook," Rubio said in a statement. "President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence. Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill."

He is being laughed at in the media because the 23 executive orders signed by the President are all common sense and supported by the vast majority of Americans.  How does Rubio and others like Rick Perry know that gun control measures wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre?  Maybe the shooter couldn't have bought the large magazines or his mother not been able to purchase assault weapons or his doctor would have turned him in for mental health issues.

If one life is saved by these measures, then that is one more person who owes their life to President Obama for being willing to stand up to the Gun Lobby and members of Congress who are in their hip pocket.  American people in overwhelming numbers support the President and the new gun control measures that should be passed into law including a lot of gun owners.

President Reagan signed the original Assault Weapons Ban yet he was a supporter of the 2nd amendment.  President George W Bush never understood why the Assault Weapons Ban was being allowed to expire and he lived on a ranch.  Yet the attacks are all against Obama which seems to fit the mantra that anything Obama proposes some GOP in Congress are automatically against without even bother to read what is proposed.  Their attacks on the President are turning off large amounts of Republicans now including Joe Scarborough who had a lot to say on his Morning Joe show about gun control and how the NRA is its own worst enemy.

Sandy Hook massacre of first graders has brought people out of the woodwork who stayed silent in the past on gun control now demanding something be done and done now.  The largest amount of Americans ever (over 80%) support comprehensive gun background checks and want the gun show loophole closed.  Before Sandy Hook it was around 50%.  Times have changed but the NRA with Wayne LaPierre have not recognized that fundamental shift by the American people.  NBC has some of the details on this shift in their article:

While some of Obama's long-expected proposals - like universal background checks - garner overwhelming public support, the outlawing of certain types of weapons may be less of a slam dunk for lawmakers eager to appease constituents.  

A recent poll from the Pew Research Center showed that a majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- back a ban on "assault-style weapons," with 40 percent saying they don't approve of a ban. But a partisan breakdown shows that only about four in ten Republicans support such restrictions, compared to a broad majority of Democrats.  

Democrats in Congress have already voiced doubts about the feasibility of the president's most ambitious proposals.  

"We're not going to get an outright ban" on assault weapons, Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York bluntly said yesterday.

 "[Senate Majority Leader] Reid has said he doesn't know whether he has the votes (for an assault weapons ban)," she added. "There's heavy lifting, so are we going to waste time on heavy lifting? Or are we going to try to work on doing something that could actually get passed?"

Supporters are more optimistic about background checks and magazine restrictions.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced Wednesday that his panel will hold its first hearing on issues relating to gun violence on Jan. 30. 

In his remarks Wednesday, Obama anticipated opponents' reactions to his proposals.
"This will be difficult," he said. "There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty. Not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves, and behind the scenes they will do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever." 

That pushback began earlier in the week, culminating in high tempers on both sides Tuesday night after the National Rifle Association released an ad criticizing Obama's dismissal of the gun lobby's proposal to increase armed security in schools.  

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator asks in the short ad. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security." 

Related: White House calls NRA 'repugnant,' 'cowardly' for invoking president's children in ad 

The ad prompted outcry from observers who said the First Family should be off limits for such advertisements, while NRA backers say their focus is on school safety rather than on the president's daughters themselves.  

"Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama's daughters are missing the point completely or they're trying to change the subject," said spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "This ad is about keeping our children safe. And the president said he was skeptical about the NRA proposal to put policemen in all schools in this country. Yet he and his family are beneficiaries of multiple law enforcement officers surrounding them 24 hours a day." 

White House spokesman Jay Carney shot back that the ad is "cowardly."  

"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," he said. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the President's children the subject of an attack ad  is repugnant and cowardly."

When I saw the NRA ad using the President's children last night, I knew the NRA was on the losing side.  I know people who were finally tipped over the edge and are now calling for gun control because that ad woke them up to the fact the NRA went from an organization promoting gun safety to an extremist organization under LaPierre who puts profits for gun/ammo manufacturers over safety of Americans.

The Democrat NRA members better think twice before they say they cannot pass an Assault Weapons Ban in Congress because their constituents may have other ideas.  (Update) I would recommend that Democrats look closely at NY Democrat Carolyn McCarthy after her statement and push even harder for AWB.  She lost her husband to gun violence but doesn't believe Congress will act:

"We're not going to get an outright ban" on assault weapons

Why not?  Is she saying that members of Congress will not vote how their constituents want but how the NRA wants them to vote?  If that is the case, they need booted out of Congress.  The arrogance of members of Congress on both sides who think they don't have to listen to constituents (all of them) but do have to listen to lobbyists don't have a clue how mad the American people are becoming.  When 63% of Republicans think their members of Congress are out touch, it says that those safe GOP seats may not be so safe from Republican voters.

The biggest question of the day is whether Congress will listen to all of us who vote?  Will Republicans in Congress side with the hard right and NRA or with the American people to save lives?   The jury is out on what they will do.

President Obama Chastises Rubio and the GOP, "We are Not a Deadbeat Nation!"

Now we have a first term Senator Marco Rubio thinking he can say whatever he wants to the President and the Country and no one is going to strike back.  He found out today that President Obama didn't like his
'deadbeat nation' comments as they are untrue.  In fact, I find Rubio's comments disgusting from a group of Republicans who don't want to raise taxes for any reason.  This man was given all kinds of help during the years because he was Hispanic and now calls the Country a 'deadbeat nation' when it is the GOP who wants to shut down Government and not pay bills?

When some of us supported Rubio for Senate, we thought we were supporting an honest man, but we were wrong.  He is nothing more then a Tea Party puppet who has no core value system left saying only what it will take keep from being primaried which makes him a wimp in my book.  He has lost my total respect along with other Republicans who have become part of the 'my way or no way' crowd bowing to the Koch Brothers Tea Party.

Stand with President Obama in taking on Republicans on the debt ceiling.  Some of the GOP comments out of the House are mind boggling showing a level of stupidity I cannot believe including Marsha Blackburn putting shutting down Government on the table to teach Obama a lesson.  Who elects these people to Congress?

'Deadbeat' Nationby Michael Tomasky Jan 14, 2013 12:11 PM EST 

It caught a lot of people's ears just now when Obama said, "We are not a deadbeat nation." What some may not know is that he's referring to Marco Rubio, who used the phrase in a Jan. 6 letter to Obama. That letter is worth a quick review. 

Rubio wrote: 

As I wrote in The Wall Street Journal in March 2011, I will oppose a debt ceiling increase unless such an authorization is accompanied by a real plan to tackle our debt. Ideally, such a plan would feature both pro-growth elements and spending restraints, including fundamental tax reform, regulatory reform, meaningful cuts to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security and Medicare. 

If we had done this in mid-2011 when we last debated the debt ceiling, we could have set America on a path to economic growth and prosperity. This would have led to more jobs and, in turn, to more duly employed taxpayers generating more growth-driven revenue to help us pay down our debt. Instead, you failed to lead, punted the tough decisions and, in doing so, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. It's a tragic reality but, on your watch, more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation inevitably heading toward a European-style debt crisis.

This of course is dishonest and silly. Note that, while Obama accepts both revenues and cuts, Rubio has no room for revenues. "Fundamental tax reform" means cutting taxes, just as "reform" to Social Security and Medicare means cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Also, I shudder to think what condition this economy would be in if we'd done this in mid-2011. Austerity hurts. I think most Republicans actually know this deep down, although it's not clear in Rubio's case how intelligent he is. 

Anyway the phrase "deadbeat nation" is going to have a lot more resonance coming out of Obama's mouth than in Rubio's letter. He has managed to turn the phrase around on the GOP.

Watch Obama make his "deadbeat nation" comments and issue a challenge to Congress.

Will the Obstructionists House Republicans Keep Saying "NO" Pushing the US Over the Cliff?

Will the Republican House Compromise?

Jury is still out.  Back from vacation and ready to roll up the sleeves -- some things don't change and the GOP House being the Party of "NO" is one of those as witnessed with what we are seeing.  They couldn't even find the votes to pass their own plan last week.  Dysfunctional comes to mind along with a lot of other words to describe this House GOP membership.

As I looked around the net this morning following the President's interview with David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press, I felt that Sam Stein of Huffington Post did the best job of recapping what happened in the interview about the fiscal cliff.  The abject failure of House Republicans by abdicating their Congressional responsibility for the budget with their stubbornness reminds me of a mule mentality.  As my brother said, someone needs to take a 2"x4" upside their head to get their attention.  

Here is the video of the David Gregory interview with President Obama on Meet the Press uploaded by NBC on You Tube:


Sam Stein's article on President Obama's interview by David Gregory on Meet the Press this morning:

WASHINGTON -- In his first Sunday show interview since his reelection, President Barack Obama admonished congressional Republicans for their unwillingness to compromise over debt-reduction and implored the media to cast aside its pox-on-both-your-houses coverage. 

With the deadline to negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff looming in the backdrop, the president took to "Meet the Press" to defend his efforts to try and find common ground. He noted that he had moved off his initial demands for revenue (once $1.6 trillion, now $1.2 trillion), agreed to entitlement reforms (reduced Social Security benefits) and already passed hefty spending cuts ($1 trillion as part of the Budget Control Act in 2011). And for that, he added, he was still waiting for Republicans to get closer to half-way.

“We have been talking to the Republicans ever since the election was over. They have had trouble saying yes to a number of repeated offers,” said the president, according to an advance transcript of the interview. He would add, later: “[S]o far, at least, Congress has not been able to get this stuff done. Not because Democrats in Congress don't want to go ahead and cooperate, but because I think it's been very hard for Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader McConnell to accept the fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up a little bit, as part of an overall deficit reduction package.”

The president's tone was tougher than usual. In the past, he’s been hesitant to directly rebuke congressional Republicans, choosing instead to attack the legislative body as a whole. 

But the last few weeks of negotiations have clearly frustrated both him and his staff. White House aides were particularly piqued at Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for shelving negotiations over a larger fiscal cliff deal in pursuit of a tax-rate-only option. That ended the legislative progress in the House and forced the Senate to pick up talks. With just days before tax rates rise on all income rates and $1 trillion in decade-long spending cuts go into effect, Senate leaders met on Saturday to find a way through the impasse. One knowledgeable aide said a deal didn’t look likely as of Saturday afternoon. A Republican aide said it would be impossible to know for sure until Sunday afternoon when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brief their respective caucuses. 

Even as they talked, preparations were being made to manage the public relations fallout over the impending failure to meet the deadline. Part of that involved the president hitting the Sunday talk show circuit, where he urged the press to not resort to false equivalencies when assigning blame. 

And to try to work with everybody involved to make sure that we've got an economy grows. Make sure that it works for everybody. Make sure that we're keeping the country safe. And does the Democratic party still have some knee jerk ideological positions and are there some folks in the Democratic party who sometimes aren't reasonable? Of course. That's true of every political party. 

But generally if you look at how I've tried to govern over the last four years and how I'll continue to try to govern, I'm not driven by some ideological agenda. I am a pretty practical guy. And I just want to make sure that things work. And one of the nice things about never having another election again, I will never campaign again, is I think you can rest assured that all I care about is making sure that I leave behind an America that is stronger, more prosperous, more stable, more secure than it was when I came into office.

The only thing I would caution against, David, is I think this notion of, "Well, both sides are just kind of unwilling to cooperate." And that's just not true. I mean if you look at the facts, what you have is a situation here where the Democratic party, warts and all, and certainly me, warts and all, have consistently done our best to try to put country first.

When the President admonished the media for saying both sides were unwilling to cooperate, he was right.  There is one party to blame for this whole debacle and that blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the Republican Party in Congress or as some have tabbed them, "Party of NO!"   That is an apt description of a  GOP who refuses to acknowledge the results of the election in November or understands the American people have spoken on what they want which is tax hikes on the wealthy.  While the GOP continues to throw the middle class under the bus, they play up to their big donors, Tea Party, and lobbyists.

Despicable group of 'non-leaders; in the GOP House who seem to be scared of their own shadows so they placate the hard right.  GOP only maintained control of the House because of some of the most corrupt gerrymandering that anyone has ever seen.  If you add up the votes for House races, the Democrats actually had over 1 million more votes but because of the underhandedness and lack of ethics of GOP State Legislatures in drawing redistricting lines like in PA, they kept control.   The GOP has a real problem in 2014 when Republicans like me decide to throw in with the Democrats to defeat GOP incumbents and candidates as we have had it with their arrogance and attacks on Obama and minorities bordering on racism, plus their war on the middle class, women, veterans, teachers, police, fire, and civil service for starters.

Most do-nothing Congress ever in modern times in the last two years since the GOP took over the House.  Our Country would be much in much better shape and Americans even more back on our feet if not for the Republican Party in Congress where in the Senate they have filibustered bills before they even hit the floor for a vote.  They are nothing but obstructionist who have a penchant for lying to the American people about this President and the Democrats in order to make themselves look good.  Note to GOP -- American people are waking up and not liking what they are seeing out of the GOP.   Will the GOP be blamed for putting us through this nonsense to keep tax cuts for the wealthy -- you betcha!

Republicans in Congress have not gotten that through their "pea size" brains based on their words and actions that they work for all their constituents not just the wealthy Republicans, Tea Party, and social issue types.  The rest of us should be heard as well as we also have votes.

With that in mind, I sat down last night and wrote my Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK) which is probably a waste of time but since he has been speaking out for the GOP with trying to blame both sides, I decided to let you see what I had to say.  I will be happy to post his response when I get it but not holding my breath because I said what I thought:

Having supported Republicans my whole adult life, find myself in the position of being thoroughly disgusted with the HOUSE GOP obstructionists with zero backbone.  Putting wealthy donors over the middle class of this Country is beyond disgusting.  The lies that come out of the House members continually make a lot of long-time Republicans want to scream.  The war on women has not stopped as witnessed with holding hearings concerning women's issues and not having women testify.  It is more of the white male dominated GOP House modus operandi.

When you take off the blinders and realize we have been lied to by the GOP over the last four years, you get madder.  Do the research and you discover that the gerrymandering to keep the House GOP was most likely the worst ever.  Hope Republicans in the House are all proud of of what you have become where wealthy are put over the middle class.

A lot of long time Republicans are embarrassed at what we see out of the GOP today.  The filibusters in the Senate are a bad joke and the Republicans have made a mockery out of governing in the House.

Don't know if I will ever vote for a Republican in the near future but do know that I met a lot of honest people who want what is best for America when I joined Republicans for Obama.  Pretty bad when you trust Democrats to look out for your well being more then Republicans.

Too many House GOP seem to agree with the 47% remark and it has not gone unnoticed.  Some of the comments coming out of the GOP and Preibus wanting to remain Chair show nothing was learned from the election -- not one thing as obstruction continues to the point of telling the Senate to act as the House won't on the cliff.  Way to go -- abdicate Constitutional responsibilities now.

The Tea Party can shove it in my book along with the wealthy donors.  You want an inclusive GOP, you may (not) be getting it.  Not one member of my family voted for Romney.  Now most are considering leaving the GOP entirely which my youngest daughter has already done in Colorado.

GOP in the House needs to take their blinders off and stand up to the Tea Party or see the GOP relegated to the scrap heap.  Seems being reelected trumps what is best for the American people.

Am I disgusted?  You can take that to the bank!

To put this into more perspective, when Cong Cole ran for the first time in 2002, I spent hours not only in his office but in my home working for his election.  Some people here think he broke from leadership but if they really believe that I have swampland for sale in Arizona.  It is plan to make some in the GOP seem more reasonable if I was a betting person.  Cole has been a consultant for years and will try to play the odds IMHO which is why the Speaker and other leadership sent the Whip Cole out to talk to the media.   

Not sure the GOP in the House or Senate could lead if their lives depended on it as they have one word in their vocabulary which is "NO" to tax hikes on the wealthy.  They will gladly see tax hikes go up for everyone to preserve their 'we didn't vote for tax cuts on the wealthy' mantra.  It seems to this bystander they (GOP) are adverse to anything that President Obama offers preferring to trash him at every turn with their lies and innuendos.   

Today's GOP in the Congress in both Houses does not come to the table as honest brokers IMHO but to see what they can pull over on Obama and the Democrats to make sure only GOP ideas see the light of day.  They have totally missed the significance of the results of the November election where President Obama received 53% of the vote and Romney ironically received 47%.  You couldn't make that up -- poetic justice has been served.   The GOP lost big time including in the Senate where they only had ten seats to defend and the Democrats 23 seats and yet the GOP lost two of those ten seats.  The American people spoke and told the Republicans including in the House where 1 million more voted for Democrats that they wanted both parties to work together.  Obviously the GOP did not get the message.  Now the House GOP won't even do their Constitutional duty to be the home of the budget.  Do you want to know why?

Ever heard of the 'Hastert Rule?'  I didn't until recently -- talk about an idiotic and stupid rule out of the GOP Conference -- this one takes the cake -- guess it is their version of filibuster:

The majority of the majority is a governing principle (not a legal procedure) used by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990's to effectively limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the house.^[1 Under the majority of the majority doctrine the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill to take place unless the majority of the majority party supports the bill.^[2] This is sometimes referred to as the “Hastert Rule”,^[3] as its introduction is widely credited to former Speaker Dennis Hastert (1999-2007); however, Newt Gingrich, who directly preceded Hastert as Speaker (1995-1999), followed the same rule.^[4] Hastert was vocal in his support of the rule stating that his job was "to please the majority of the majority."^[5]

In practical terms this keeps the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a small number of members of the majority party. It takes 218 votes to pass a bill. Even when there are 218 votes to pass a bill, the rule prevents votes from taking place when those 218 votes do not include the majority of the majority party. If the Democrats are the minority party and the Republicans are the majority party, under the majority of the majority rule it would not be possible for 170 Democrats and 50 Republicans together to pass a bill, because 50 Republicans votes is far short of a majority of the majority party, so the Speaker would not allow a vote to take place.^[6] As an example, if the Republican Party is the majority party and has 234 seats in Congress, it would take 118 (117+1) Republican votes in support of legislation before a vote could take place. With less than 118 Republican votes the legislation would be blocked, even if 218 or more votes could be found between the two parties. 

A discharge petition signed by 218 members (or more) from any party is the only way to force consideration of a bill or resolution that does not have support of a majority of the majority. However, discharge petitions are rarely successful, as a member of the majority party defying their party's leadership by signing a discharge petition can expect retribution from the leadership.

Thought the comments of the last three Speaker's were telling:

Dennis Hastert (Speaker from 1999 - 2007): "On occasion, a particular issue might excite a majority made up mostly of the minority. Campaign finance is a particularly good example of this phenomenon. [But] the job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority."^[5] 

Nancy Pelosi (2007 - 2011): "I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."^[7] 

John Boehner (2011 -): "I’m not interested in passing something with mostly Democrat votes."^[8]

Out of three Speakers only the Democrat Speaker Pelosi believes as Speaker she should represent everyone not just Democrats so she did not adhere to the so-called 'Hastert Rule' which Republican Speakers try to follow 100%.  If Boehner strays from the rule, Hastert is there to take him on for ignoring the 'Hastert' Rule.

That is no way to govern the people's House of Representatives where the members are the House are elected and sent to DC to work for us the American people not the Republican Party.

The wealthy donors led by the Koch Brothers, Tea Party, and Social Conservatives are all totally opposed to anything the President offers and refuse to even consider compromise as they adhere to their 'my way or no way' rule which is destroying the very foundation of the Republican Party.  When President Eisenhower integrated schools, it was the Democrats who opposed him.  Today, it would be Republicans because that white, southern male racist mentality exists in a lot of today's Republican elected officials.  They will toss a bone to a minority or woman but that is about it.  It is a white male dominated party who have the respect of a gnat for women and their issues.  Truly believe that if Hillary had been elected, she would have had the same problem as President Obama as some in the GOP consider women the lowest of the minorities.

Fox News has been the willing participant to trash this President and outright lie about him as we have been witnessing.  Ethics in Journalism doesn't seem to apply to Fox News as well as some others.  They wouldn't know what ethics was if it hit them in the face.  Many members of the media along with the Republicans in the Congress and in the States will say and do anything to make this President look bad whether true or not  the expense of the American people and the Country.

As a lifelong Republican I find this whole group of Republicans in the Congress beyond disgusting and frankly reprehensible that they put the Party over what is good for the Country because they want big donors, lobbyists, and hard right Tea Party on their side as they are afraid to be primaried and lose their job.  They have the backbone of a wet noodle.  Do they not understand that a lot of us would roll up our sleeves and open our checkbooks if they would just stand up and say no to the hard right taking the party back to center right where common sense prevails?  A good start would be kicking out the Koch Brothers with the libertarian/John Birchers in toe, the Tea Party obstructionists who only know the word 'no' along the 2nd amendment militia types for starters but chances of that happening are zero, zip, nada as the GOP stays hard right IMHO.

If the Republican Party refuses to get some common sense, they will be relegated to the trash heap of history which will show they went too far hard right to where they could not govern.  America is a diverse country but this bunch of Republicans cannot seem to grasp that very idea as they pander to the wealthy and the hard right.

Any Democrat wants help in a Congressional race in 2014, sign me up.  This bunch of House Republicans needs to see the unemployment line as well as some in the Senate starting with Minority Leader McConnell.  Can you say Ashley Judd?

Can the GOP be rebuilt?  From what I am seeing, I have my doubts as they are doubling down on stupid.  That leaves a viable new party to rise from the ashes.  The GOP did it with the Whigs, but are there leaders out there today willing to put up with the garbage out of the mouths of Fox News talk people, Rush, Hannity, and the big donors like Koch in order to stand up for all Americans?  Are they willing to go out of a limb to provide those of us who are long time Republicans a Party with common sense ideas on how to make America a better place for everyone not just the wealthy and the hard right?  Are they willing to work and compromise with Democrats and Independents in order to make this Country better?  If not, the Republican Party is going to start seeing an exodus after what we are seeing out of our elected officials in Congress.

Must admit that I am shocked that the Republican didn't learn one thing from the election when they were repudiated big time.  Stubborn like a mule does describe this group in of Republicans in the House.

Wash Post Editorial: Mr. Romney’s rhetoric on embassy attacks is a discredit to his campaign

Yesterday was a horrible day for our diplomatic corps as the stark reality of what they face on a daily basis came home with the murder of two of their fellow members including the Ambassador in Yemen along with two private security guards.  Libyans were standing side by side with Americans defending the consulate where these murders took place.

As Americans were mourning the loss of the lives of members of our diplomatic corps and praying for their families and friends, Romney goes on the attack against the President not once but twice when he doubled down in his press conference.  Once again he didn't have the facts but that doesn't seem to bother Romney even a little.  Today he is doubling down once more at a small rally in Virginia as he continues to play to the right wing fringe of the Republican Party.


Bad day for Romney but a worse day for America yesterday when a Presidential candidate for the first time any of us can remember attacks a sitting President when four Americans, including the Ambassador to Libya, had just been killed in an attack on the consulate in Libya.  Romney has zero class and should pay dearly at the polls on November 6th for his actions.

Mr. Romney’s rhetoric on embassy attacks is a discredit to his campaignBy Editorial Board, Wednesday, September 12, 2:02 PM 

The Washington Post 

J.CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was a skilled and courageous diplomat who repeatedly placed himself at risk in order to support the cause of a democratic Libya. His death, along with those of three other Americans, during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday is a tragedy that should prompt bipartisan support for renewed U.S. aid to Libyans who are struggling to stabilize the country. That it instead provoked a series of crude political attacks on President Obama by GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is a discredit to his campaign. 

Mr. Romney’s first rhetorical assault came Tuesday night in response to a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which was also besieged by demonstrators Tuesday. His statement claimed that the administration’s first response was “to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” In fact the embassy statement was issued before the protests began; referring to an ugly anti-Islam film that was the focus of demonstrators, it condemned “those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious belief of others.” 

Mr. Romney did not then know the extent of the Benghazi incident — his statement referred only to “the death of an American consulate worker.” So it was stunning to see the GOP nominee renew his verbal offensive Wednesday morning, when the country was still absorbing the news of the first death in service of a U.S. ambassador since 1988, as well as the loss of three other Americans. Though reports were still sketchy, it appeared that a militant jihadist group, Ansar al-Sharia, took advantage of the Benghazi protest to stage an armed assault that overwhelmed the Libyan security force at the consulate. 

At a news conference, Mr. Romney claimed that the administration had delivered “an apology for America’s values.” In fact, it had done no such thing: Religious tolerance, as much as freedom of speech, is a core American value. The movie that provoked the protests, which mocks the prophet Mohammed and portrays Muslims as immoral and violent, is a despicable piece of bigotry; it was striking that Mr. Romney had nothing to say about such hatred directed at a major religious faith. 

Mr. Obama struck the right tone on Wednesday, saying that “we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” but that “there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.” Lauding Mr. Stevens’s service, the president promised “justice” for “this terrible act” while also committing the administration to continue cooperating with Libya’s democratic government — which apologized for the attack.  

(snip) 

Excerpt:  Read More at the Washington Post

Some websites reported that the Libyans were dragging the Ambassador's body through the streets when in fact Libyans were carrying him to the hospital.  Like Romney, some members of the news media especially Fox News ran with the story rather then waiting for details.   Yesterday there were signs around the consulate being carried by Libyans apologizing for what happened.  Ambassador Stevens was a hero to many Libyans who helped them throw off the repressive Gaddafi regime.

We have learned with every passing hour that these attacks were probably in retaliation for the killing of an Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan from Libya.  It seems an Al Qaeda group used the protesters to cover for their attack on the consulate which killed four Americans -- two diplomats and two security personnel.

What were these Libyans protesting?  An anti-Islam film that showed Mohammad in a very bad light that excerpts were shown on You Tube picked up around the world.  It was also promoted by the Minister Jones in Gainesville who burned the Quran which sparked the demonstrations in the Middle East ending in the deaths of people.  Romney calls the film, 'freedom of speech' -- I call the film 'hate speech.'  Yet Romney attacked the Embassy in Egypt for exercising their free speech to put out the memo trying to diffuse the situation.  Seems like it is only freedom of speech for Romney and Republicans and what they choose to support but everyone else is not entitled to free speech if it conflicts with the Romney/Republican narrative.  That is how it is coming across even to longtime Republicans who don't recognize this version of the Republican Party.

The producer of the poor quality film turns out not to exist under the name that was used and his saying he was Israeli American is also suspect.  The people in the video didn't know what they were filming and were used by a film maker as part of over 150 people who thought they were helping stage or were in the film 'Desert Warrior.'  Steven Klein from So California is the spokesman for the anti-Islam film.  Two of the people in the film have released the script that did not show the hate speech which was dubbed in later according to what I just watched on MSNBC News. From reports, this film's spokesman Steve Klein and the movie are linked to Christian extremists in the US which would include Jones from Gainesville, FL.

Hard for me to believe anyone could defend Jones and his burning of the Quran along with this hate film but the far right extremist fringe is doing just that with their comments on various websites.  In some cases they are scary -- refuse to repeat the comments on here.  They hit Huffington Post, The Hill, Politico and others with their support of Romney and the film as 'free speech' along with vicious attacks on President Obama.  Their defense of this film shows how low this part of the Romney Republican Party has sunk including the standard bearer himself with his attacks on Obama not being American or understanding America.  It has carried over with some of the nastiest comments I have witnessed to date.

Romney with his rhetoric and lies is also responsible for encouraging more of the hate that is coming out today against this black President IMHO.  That said the people most responsible for the spread of the hate are the Conservative radio pundits led by Rush Limbaugh.  His comments against Obama are so far over the top with anger that I suspect a heart attack in the making.  The clips you see of Limbaugh are shocking.

Yesterday Sen McCain gave a speech on the floor of the Senate praising Ambassador Stevens as he knew him personally but today he is back on the attack against President Obama for his actions in Libya sounding like that bitter person who lost the election in 2008.  Also sounds just like he did after losing the primary to George W. Bush in 2000 and his attacks on Pres Bush in years to follow.

The video that touched off the riots in Libya and Egypt has led to riots today in Yemen where protesters were trying to attack the embassy but were repelled by Yemeni forces.  The Yemen President apologized this morning and has troops guarding the embassy now.  This was all precipitated by a video by a racist, not very good film producer, who staged the film and then someone dubbed in the rest.  Who payed for this film and its release?  Was Jones  responsible for the You Tube version being promoted?  He says no but can you believe him?

Terry Jones, the Florida pastor whose burning of Qurans previously sparked deadly riots in Pakistan and other Muslim nations, had tried to promote the film on Tuesday as part of a series of 9/11 anniversary events at his Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla.  Jones told NBC News on Wednesday that he aired the trailer once previously in his makeshift church but that efforts to screen it on Tuesday were thwarted by technical difficulties.

"I have not met him. Sam Bacile, that is not his real name," Jones told the AP. "I just talked to him on the phone. He is definitely in hiding and does not reveal his identity. He was quite honestly fairly shook up concerning the events and what is happening. A lot of people are not supporting him." 

Secretary of State Clinton once again this morning said that the United States had nothing to do with this video:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is sharpening her criticism of an anti-Islam video that provoked protests in the Arab world. 

Clinton says the film is "disgusting and reprehensible." She calls it a cynical attempt to offend people for their religious beliefs. 

But Clinton says the U.S. would never stop Americans from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful. And she says the film is no justification for violence or attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel.

In reality the protesters refuse to listen that the United States had nothing to do with this video as they look for any excuse to take to the streets to protest the United States.  IMHO Romney attacks on Obama saying  Obama is a terrorist sympathizer and the film 'freedom of speech' to has not helped but inflamed the far right hate speech in this Country.

Republicans as a whole yesterday behaved in a reasonable manner but this morning have taken back up the attacks against Obama with this crisis still on-going.  Romney's numbers must be in the tank the way Romney and Republicans are acting.

Romney and Priebus are a discredit not only to the campaign but the Republican Party of days gone by.  Their rush to get a press release out before the facts IMHO was an extension of Romney being told he was not tough enough by Rush and others led to him running out to show his toughness the night this happened and yesterday morning.  It is obvious when Rush says jump, Romney says how high?

This Romney rhetoric was doubled down on yesterday as he plays to the far right once again.  Romney is not only losing Independents over his actions but Republicans with common sense are also jumping ship in bigger numbers this week as Romney plays to the far right fringe elements of the Party.  Even Fox News is saying Obama is up in the polls.

The numbers of Republicans fed up is not showing in registration changes, but is showing up in polling and in the number of people willing to speak out they, as Republicans, are supporting Obama.  The numbers are growing almost daily now as blinders are coming off from a lot of Republicans who realize that we don't want a flawed candidate like Romney in the White House.  They also discovering what many of us have learned that we were lied to about Obama starting in 2004 when he ran for the Senate.  Should have guessed then as the lies and hate was coming from Alan Keyes who opposed him were over the top.  Learned in 2000 not to trust Keyes on anything and should have remembered that.  His hate, rhetoric, and lies against Obama in 2004 seemed to have been picked up by people like Rove who have expanded on that narrative over the years and believe the end justifies the means.

After what we are witnessing with Romney and his attacks which have increased in volume but have stayed consistent on not providing facts and lying, there are a few questions that deserve answers which only time will answer:

• When did the Republican Party Leadership as a whole go so far right? 
• Was this shift to the far right planned all along starting in 2006?  
• Why alienate a group of Republicans who have been out helping campaigns for years to pander to the far right extremes of the Republican Party.  
• Is this a hostile takeover of the GOP by the Romney/Koch/Rove driven Tea Party where some  racists seem to have found a home?  The hate spewed from some members of the Tea Party is so far over the top, it is scary.  
• Whose money is behind all this hate?  Romney, Koch Brothers, Big Donors to Crossroads, Adelson?  

Already puzzle pieces are fitting into place as this election beginning to make sense.  More research to be done but it is starting to come together.

Check out the Pink Flamingo blog for more details on this election and what is happening.  Some very good research and analysis.  As we have talked, we have discovered we are arriving at the same conclusions from different paths.  Today's article "What Did Romney Know & When Did He Know It" is asking the tough questions because the timeline and Romney's press release calls into question "What did Romney know?"

Senator John McCain Praises Obama For Afghanistan Trip

Senator John McCain is once again showing the class that every last Senator and Member of the House should show when the President travels overseas no matter the party of the President.  This is about America not Republican or Democrat or who can score points.

Republicans are now acting like none of our Presidents made any trips at all for political purposes which is about as hypocritical as you can get.  What is the most hypocritical is all the comments that Obama was using the Seal Team attack on Bin Laden's compound that end up in the death of Bin Laden when Romney who had absolutely zero to do with any of it goes to a New York fire station to celebrate the one year anniversary of Bin Laden's death.  Romney is a walking hypocrite as in 2007 he said:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan.

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," Romney told reporters on the campaign trail.

A little over four years ago Romney is saying he would not launch an attack into another Country to strike at al Qaeda but today he says all Presidents would have done that.  The lies just keep coming from Romney but the RNC expects conservatives to just fall in line when we know that Romney should have never run with his liberal baggage and statements.  His campaign and the establishment act like his previous comments meant nothing.  How can you be sure what he believes?

John McCain Praises Obama For Afghanistan Trip
Posted: 05/ 1/2012 5:21 pm Updated: 05/ 1/2012 5:21 pm 

John McCain is "pleased" to learn about President Obama's surprise visit to Afghanistan. Obama arrived in Kabul on Tuesday, the eve of the anniversary Osama bin Laden's death, to meet with President Hamid Karzai about the presence of U.S. troops in the country. He will deliver a televised address from Afghanistan at 7:30 p.m. ET. 

McCain released a statement praising Obama for his commitment to a "a secure and free Afghanistan":   

“I am pleased that the President has traveled to Afghanistan. This is a significant opportunity for him to hear directly from our military commanders and troops on the ground about the significant progress we are making in this fight. 

“It is also important because President Obama and President Karzai will announce the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement, which will define the long-term political, economic, and military commitment between our countries. While I will carefully examine the details of this agreement, I am hopeful that it will send a signal to friends and enemies in the region that the United States is committed to a secure and free Afghanistan. 

“I hope the President's speech tonight will emphasize the degree of our commitment in Afghanistan, rather than the plans for withdrawal. I would urge the President to return from this visit and spend more time speaking directly with the American people about the vital national security interests at stake in Afghanistan and the need for the United States to remain strongly engaged there in the years ahead.” 

Source:  Huffington Post        

LA Times: Gabrielle Giffords: 'Person of interest' sought in Arizona shooting (Update: Has Been Cleared)

UPDATE, 6:51 p.m. cst: Arizona authorities say a second man has been cleared of any involvement in an attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson.

Pima County Sheriff’s Deputy Jason Ogan said Sunday that the man was a cab driver who drove the gunman to the grocery store outside of which the shooting occurred.

Ogan says the man went into the store because the gunman apparently hadn’t paid his fare.

*******

Of all the articles on the net this morning following the shooting, this one seemed to give the most facts without bias or rhetoric.  We noticed that more and more of the Los Angeles Times reporters are doing that today which is refreshing.  Used to be a favorite newspaper when we lived in Southern California in the 80's but then the PC crowd over.  Enjoy seeing them going back to reporting.

This is the latest on the investigation which FBI Director Mueller is now heading:

Gabrielle Giffords: 'Person of interest' sought in Arizona shooting

Pima County sheriff releases a photo of an additional person sought for questioning in the Arizona shooting that killed 6 and wounded 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

A TV image shows a man wanted for questioning by police in
relation to the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson.
(Getty Images / January 9, 2011)

By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times

January 9, 2011, 7:36 a.m.

Arizona authorities early Sunday morning were searching for a "person of interest" in connection with the Arizona shooting that left six dead and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition as the nation tried to come to grips with the attack.

The Pima County sheriff's office released a photo of a man they described as a person of interest who was wanted in connection with Saturday's shooting, which left 13 wounded, including Democratic Rep. Giffords, 40. The unknown person was photographed by a surveillance camera near the shooting suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, 22.

The person appears to be white with dark hair and about 40 years old.

"We want to know if the person of interest is associated with" the suspect, Pima County Deputy Jason Ogan said in a telephone interview. "We released the photo to see if anyone knows him."

The suspect was in federal custody Sunday, Ogan said. On the orders of President Obama, FBI Director Robert Mueller traveled to Arizona to head the investigation.

Loughner was apprehended by people in the crowd after the midmorning shooting at a Tucson supermarket. Witnesses described how he sprayed the area with bullets, killing among others, Arizona's chief federal judge and a 9-year-old girl, who was later identified as the daughter of a Dodgers scout.

Officials wouldn't discuss the motive for the attack, but witnesses said it appeared focused.

"I feel like he knew what he came there to do and he done it," Joe Zamudio said Sunday morning on MSNBC.

Authorities identified the dead as U.S. District Judge John Roll, 63; Christina Taylor Green, 9; Giffords aide Gabe Zimmerman, 30; Dorothy Morris, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; and Phyllis Scheck, 79. Roll had just stopped by to see his friend Giffords after attending Mass.

But officials said they believed that Giffords, who had been sworn in for her third term with the rest of the 112th Congress last week, was the primary target. At 40, Giffords was considered a moderate Democrat who favored immigration reform and who had been the subject of at least two "unfortunate incidents" during the recent campaign for reelection. Giffords defeated "tea party" candidate Jesse Kelly by just 4,000 votes.

In a typically heated congressional campaign in the recent, hyper-partisan midterm elections, Kelly blamed Giffords for supporting President Obama's healthcare overhaul and for her more liberal views on immigration reform, a sore subject in Arizona, a border state whose efforts to halt illegal immigration have drawn condemnation from liberals and the federal government.

On Saturday, Giffords was shot in the head while meeting constituents. She was taken to University Medical Center, where spokeswoman Darcy Slaten said the congresswoman was in critical condition Sunday morning after undergoing two hours of surgery. Hospital officials said they were guardedly optimistic

Slaten said nine other wounded were being treated at the hospital, four of them in critical condition and five serious. Three of the wounded had been treated and released.

While authorities sorted out the details of the shooting, the political world continued to reel as the attack raised fears of a new level of partisan animosity.

In a televised statement from a government building near his home of West Chester, Ohio, House Speaker John Boehner asked that flags at the Capitol be flown at half-staff in honor of the victims. He again condemned violence.

"An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve," Boehner said. "Such acts of violence have no place in our society."

Boehner said the House will postpone its scheduled business this week to deal with any needed actions in the wake of the shootings, including if additional security measures were needed.

The House had been scheduled to vote on a repeal of the Obama healthcare program Wednesday. The action was largely symbolic, fulfilling a GOP pledge in the election campaign. But any repeal was expected to fail in the Senate and would face a veto from Obama.

In his comments, Boehner also stressed that the shootings should not stop lawmakers from fulfilling their responsibilities.

"This inhuman act should not, and will not, deter us from our calling to represent our constituents and to fulfill our oaths of office," Boehner said. "No act, no matter how heinous, must be allowed to stop us from our duties."

Boehner's comments echoed those by Obama right after the attack.

Praising Giffords as an extraordinary public servant, the president also condemned the shooting.

"We do not yet have all the answers," Obama said Saturday. "What we do know is that such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society.

michael.muskal@latimes.com

twitter.com/LATimesmuskal